BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16/10/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P(MD)No.9001 of 2008 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2008 C.Sathanatham . . . Petitioner Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai - 28. 2.The District Registrar, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District. . . . Respondents PRAYER Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for the records in Charge Memo No.69394/B1/2005-2 dated 17.02.2006 pending on the file of the first respondent, subsequently revised the same in No.69394/B1/2005-2 dated 06.07.2007 and quash the same. !For Petitioner ... Mr.G.Karnan ^For Respondents... Mr.D.Sasikumar Government Advocate * * * * :ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also
Mr.D.Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate, who took notice on behalf of the
respondents.
2. The gist and kernel of the prayer of the petitioner as found set out in
the affidavit accompanying the writ petition would run thus:
The petitioner is a retired Sub-Registrar in the Registration Department,
who is being proceeded against by issuing Charge Memo No.69394/B1/2005-2 dated
17.02.2006, which was subsequently revised on 06.07.2007. However, there is
tardy progress in conducting the enquiry and accordingly, the petitioner prays
for quashing the Charge Memo, whereas the learned Government Advocate would
oppose the move.
3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would make a supine submission that the petitioner restricts his
prayer to the effect that necessary direction might be given by this Court for
speedy disposal of the disciplinary proceedings.
4. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner as the Hon’ble Apex Court repeatedly
highlighted that disciplinary proceedings should be disposed of as expeditiously
as possible and the delinquent official should not be kept under tender-hooks ad
infinitum or till the hell freezes. Hence, the following direction is issued:
“The disciplinary authority viz., the second respondent shall do well to
see that the disciplinary proceedings are completed within a period of three
months from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order”.
5. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected M.P(MD)No.1 of 2008 is closed.
smn
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai – 28.
2.The District Registrar,
Pattukkottai,
Thanjavur District.